Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And a name of a Japan carrier, attacked Pearl Harbour.
I mean, if Germans name one of their "pocket carriers" "Bismarch" Brits may be upset.
Creatures with the effective survival instinct must avoid such names.
It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.
May be, it was our mistake. May be, it would be better to hang him (and the rest of the government).Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
Compared to their immediate surrender?Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
But the tables remained upright.
So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.
Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless
It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.
You mean hang Truman right?May be, it was our mistake. May be, it would be better to hang him (and the rest of the government).Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Yes. We were fighting for our interest. They were fighting for their interests.It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.
You mean like our leaders did with Iraq and Vietnam?
The old English bulldog. He too should have been hung.Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.
...
You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.The history that everyone else reads does.
...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.The history that everyone else reads does.
...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.
...
5th most powerful military in the world.
2024 Military Strength Ranking
Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.www.globalfirepower.com
We didn't have the bomb at that time, idiot. Way to miss the point. You haven't even read all the posts on this thread, have you?...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
I agree. I wished we would have nuked IJ too and killed every last ... on the island
Oh look, another 98lb weakling trying to thump his chest on the internet.... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.
...
5th most powerful military in the world.
2024 Military Strength Ranking
Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.www.globalfirepower.com
And totally benign. They remember the ass whooping.
If you find your ignorance amusing, that's your problem.You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.The history that everyone else reads does.
Thanks for the chuckle.
If you find your ignorance amusing, that's your problem.You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.The history that everyone else reads does.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Better than you playing with your man boobs.Oh look, another 98lb weakling trying to thump his chest on the internet.... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.
...
5th most powerful military in the world.
2024 Military Strength Ranking
Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.www.globalfirepower.com
And totally benign. They remember the ass whooping.
Perhaps We could have waited to invade. Then exterminated the cockroaches on IJ. Perhaps we should have. Hindsight is 20/20We didn't have the bomb at that time, idiot. Way to miss the point. You haven't even read all the posts on this thread, have you?...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
I agree. I wished we would have nuked IJ too and killed every last ... on the island
